If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

I generally get what you're saying. But playoff games tend to be won by the starters. Now you certainly need a better bench than the one the Pacers trotted out last year, but in general starters decide playoff games. That's why we went as far as we did last year. So you also have to put a value on being a starter versus being a bench player. If the starting lineup is better with one player than the other, then it should be weighed more heavily.

But yeah, we both agree that this is an extremely theoretical conversation.

How many playoff games have OKC James Harden and Manu Ginobili won for their teams? A lot of them. 6th men of this kind may not start technicality but they are starters in reality. They play starter minutes, they play a lot with the starters and they are on the court to finish the game.

Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

I generally get what you're saying. But playoff games tend to be won by the starters. Now you certainly need a better bench than the one the Pacers trotted out last year, but in general starters decide playoff games. That's why we went as far as we did last year. So you also have to put a value on being a starter versus being a bench player. If the starting lineup is better with one player than the other, then it should be weighed more heavily.

But yeah, we both agree that this is an extremely theoretical conversation.

I think the last two seasons is proof that a bench is very important. See how the last two years our starters have beat the Heat's starters, even dominated, but our bench got dominated by even more both years causing us to lose. If we have Danny last year in all odds we go to the finals.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

How many playoff games have OKC James Harden and Manu Ginobili won for their teams? A lot of them. 6th men of this kind may not start technicality but they are starters in reality. They play starter minutes, they play a lot with the starters and they are on the court to finish the game.

You don't get it. Even though literally everybody agrees that the best thing for Lance to do is be a primary ballhandler AND it's quite apparent Vogel isn't going to let him do it with the starters AND everybody agrees that it's who finishes and not who starts that really matters, the best thing for our team is if Lance starts. That way, Lance can start the game with the starters to build chemistry, stay out there with the bench so he can be a handler, and finish with the starters because that's how you win ballgames.

Also, all of this has to do with purely basketball reasons and has absolutely nothing to do with the competition being between my favorite player on the team and either the guy I don't like because he reminds me of Jim O'Brien or the guy who plays point guard but isn't a pure point guard.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

I think I'm done with this whole Lance vs. Granger thing period. It's a good discussion and very important for our team, but it is very difficult to hold a proper discussion when people switch back and forth between arguing what they would do with the roster if they had full control of all decisions and arguing what should be done given what Frank Vogel actually likes to do with certain combinations. There's common ground all over the place, but it seems like whenever you try to agree with somebody on a particular point, they instantly qualify it with something that Vogel isn't prone to actually doing.

Absolutely everybody here likes Lance, but it's pretty clear there are a lot of people that don't like Granger. And that means any situation in which Granger "wins" in any way, shape, or form must be trod on.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aamcguy For This Useful Post:

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

The biggest issue I saw in the playoffs last year was that GH struggles against tough, playoff pressure 'D'. He has a relatively weak handle for a PG. Besides the occaisonal turnover (which are a type that almost always lead to points) the big issue is that because he struggles advancing the ball, they start their offensive sets late. That is a killer for a team wanting to play inside - out. PG is certainly improving as a ball handler, but Im not ready to put that responsibility on him, especially considering (assuming they meet Miami again) he would have to do it against the best player on the planet. Lance has a much more advanced handle, would be advancing against an aging Wade, and is simply the best player the Pacers have at pushing the ball. Pushing the ball and getting early offense before the D is set is huge against great defensive teams like Miami and Chicago - prmarily their starting lineups.

I'm curious how much better some of you think Lance will play given more minutes with the bench. I mean, he's playing pretty damn good now. He's 2nd on the team in points, rebounds, and assists. He's leading the team in minutes. What is it you expect from moving him to the bench? 1st in those categories? I just don't get it. People talk like it will have no effect on the starters, but will supercharge the bench. That's BS. You can't subtract someone contributing is so many different ways and not affect the starting lineup. Especially when's its two players as different as DG and Lance. If you think Lance will strengthen the bench, fine - but don't pretend it won't change the dynamics of a starting lineup that played great last year and has looked even better to start this season.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

The biggest issue I saw in the playoffs last year was that GH struggles against tough, playoff pressure 'D'. He has a relatively weak handle for a PG. Besides the occaisonal turnover (which are a type that almost always lead to points) the big issue is that because he struggles advancing the ball, they start their offensive sets late. That is a killer for a team wanting to play inside - out. PG is certainly improving as a ball handler, but Im not ready to put that responsibility on him, especially considering (assuming they meet Miami again) he would have to do it against the best player on the planet. Lance has a much more advanced handle, would be advancing against an aging Wade, and is simply the best player the Pacers have at pushing the ball. Pushing the ball and getting early offense before the D is set is huge against great defensive teams like Miami and Chicago - prmarily their starting lineups.

I'm curious how much better some of you think Lance will play given more minutes with the bench. I mean, he's playing pretty damn good now. He's 2nd on the team in points, rebounds, and assists. He's leading the team in minutes. What is it you expect from moving him to the bench? 1st in those categories? I just don't get it. People talk like it will have no effect on the starters, but will supercharge the bench. That's BS. You can't subtract someone contributing is so many different ways and not affect the starting lineup. Especially when's its two players as different as DG and Lance. If you think Lance will strengthen the bench, fine - but don't pretend it won't change the dynamics of a starting lineup that played great last year and has looked even better to start this season.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

The Lakers will obviously rearrange their team when Kobe comes back because he makes them an infinitely better team. But the Pacers don't need to do that for Granger. We're better than ever right now and don't need to rearrange what's working so well.

But what if we're better with Danny in the starting lineup than we are with Lance in the starting lineup.

and vnzla81...when you have two ball dominant guards playing together, one of them has to play off ball..or you can split up their time on the court. DWade plays off the ball when he's on the court with Lebron. Harden, Manu, and now Lin came off the bench. I don't see how this is such a hard concept to grasp. There is only one ball, so if two ball dominant players are on the court together, only one of them can control the ball.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

People talk like it will have no effect on the starters, but will supercharge the bench. That's BS. You can't subtract someone contributing is so many different ways and not affect the starting lineup. Especially when's its two players as different as DG and Lance. If you think Lance will strengthen the bench, fine - but don't pretend it won't change the dynamics of a starting lineup that played great last year and has looked even better to start this season.

Of course it would change the dynamics of the starters, that is obvious, but a change in dynamics doesn't mean a change for the worse. We are talking about two different line-ups, one line-up was arguably the best starting line-up of 11-12 and the other was arguably the best starting line-up of 12-13. Either way, as long as Danny is healthy and capable, we will have one of the best starting line-ups in the league. So it really comes down to is it strategically better to bring Lance or Danny play as the 6th man, and is the bench with Lance better or is the bench with Danny better. In my opinion Lance is the ideal type of player to be a sixth man, bringing energy and intensity, and fits much much better with our bench pieces than Danny.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

Then, what is the problem? You say you want him coming off the bench, then you say he's getting all his stats with them. 2nd on team in points, rebounds, and assists. What are you trying to accomplish again?

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

Of course it would change the dynamics of the starters, that is obvious, but a change in dynamics doesn't mean a change for the worse. We are talking about two different line-ups, one line-up was arguably the best starting line-up of 11-12 and the other was arguably the best starting line-up of 12-13. Either way, as long as Danny is healthy and capable, we will have one of the best starting line-ups in the league. So it really comes down to is it strategically better to bring Lance or Danny play as the 6th man, and is the bench with Lance better or is the bench with Danny better. In my opinion Lance is the ideal type of player to be a sixth man, bringing energy and intensity, and fits much much better with our bench pieces than Danny.

The starting lineup from 11-12 does not exist. PG, Hibbert, and DG are significantly different players than they were then and the dynamics, shot distibution, etc would all need to be completly different. Unless you are suggesting DG take 150-200 more shots more than PG, West, Roy again?

What you are suggesting is an experiment - not switching between two known entities.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

Then, what is the problem? You say you want him coming off the bench, then you say he's getting all his stats with them. 2nd on team in points, rebounds, and assists. What are you trying to accomplish again?

What?

Right now Lance starts, but plays a good amount with the bench. When he is in the game with the bench, he is putting up better numbers than he does when he is with the starters. When Granger gets back and we have a suitable replacement for Lance in the starting line up, it makes sense to have Lance come off the bench and play with the second unit, a role in which he is doing extremely well in right now (playing with the second unit).

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

Right now Lance starts, but plays a good amount with the bench. When he is in the game with the bench, he is putting up better numbers than he does when he is with the starters. When Granger gets back and we have a suitable replacement for Lance in the starting line up, it makes sense to have Lance come off the bench and play with the second unit, a role in which he is doing extremely well in right now (playing with the second unit).

Simple question - if Lance is already playing significant time with the bench, why does his role need to change at all when DG comes back?

The Following User Says Thank You to rm1369 For This Useful Post:

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

And I'd suggest he's playing pretty damn well with the starters as well. There's more to the game than scoring. Lance is a "glue guy" in the starting lineup and "the man" with the bench. At this stage of their careers, Lance is a better ball handler, rebounder, passer, and defender than DG. DG may be a better scorer and shooter. The starting lineup definetly isn't lacking scoring and, IMO, the ball handling and passing are bigger needs for the starting lineup than shooting (assuming DG is even better at this point).

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

Simple question - if Lance is already playing significant time with the bench, why does his role need to change at all when DG comes back?

Moving him to the bench wouldn't be changing his role. Merely tweaking when he is playing. Instead of being the first sub out, he would be the first sub in, get his burn with the starters, then run with the bench. Where as now its get his burn with the starters, rest, run with the bench. Same role, just different times.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

So, I'll ask again - if nothing is really changing, then what are you trying to accomplish? I have to assume that you want him to get more time (most of his time) with the bench and less with the starters. Is that correct? To me that's a role change. If that's correct, what kind of numbers are you expecting Lance to elevate to?

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

In case some people haven't notice we are 3-0 without DG, don't change what is not broken and if you want to change it is because you are stubborn or have an agenda.

Pretty rich of you to say anyone is stubborn or has an agenda...

And the last time I heard people clamoring the "if it ain't broke, dont fix it!" was about DC starting over Hill. Godd thing we didn't listen to them right?

Yeah we are 3-0. And the combined record of teams we have beaten is what, 3-6? No, our team isn't broken. But it ain't perfect either. There is room for improvement. Granger starting and Lance being the 6th man could quite possibly be a bigger improvement than Lance starting and Granger being the 6th man.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

Yes, the Pacers could have *offered* an extension this offseason. However, it would have been a completely unrealistic offers, because Indiana would only be allowed to offer something like 120% of his previous salary...meaning they could have extended Lance to a contract paying approx. $1.2M, or a fourth of what he'll likely get now.

Had nothing to do with remaining flexible, and everything to do with the inherent limitations of the NBA extension system.

Thank you! It's about the only thing not based on speculation on this thread, so of course it doesn't get discussed.

Again, people. There was no way that the Pacers could have made a reasonable extension offer to Lance. That's the downside of being a second rounder.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

And the last time I heard people clamoring the "if it ain't broke, dont fix it!" was about DC starting over Hill. Godd thing we didn't listen to them right?

Actually, I think it was the other way round. Hill started over DC only because DC got injured. Once DC was healthy again, he never got his starting spot back, according to the mantra of don't fix what's not broken.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

So, I'll ask again - if nothing is really changing, then what are you trying to accomplish? I have to assume that you want him to get more time (most of his time) with the bench and less with the starters. Is that correct? To me that's a role change. If that's correct, what kind of numbers are you expecting Lance to elevate to?

Lance's minute split between the starters and bench isn't all that different. Tonight it was 18 with the starters, 14 with the bench. Maybe those numbers switch. Its a pretty small change. And to me it doesn't change his role. We wouldnt be asking him to play a different position, or play a different way.

What is trying to be accomplished is maximizing the production out of both units upon Granger's return.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

Actually, I think it was the other way round. Hill started over DC only because DC got injured. Once DC was healthy again, he never got his starting spot back, according to the mantra of don't fix what's not broken.

Im talking about before DC got injured. I want to say it was around January. I remember because I changed my opinion on it. Originally I wanted DC to remain the starter. But as the season went on, it became clear to me that Hill would be the better option. I also remember it because vnzla was probably the first to really call for Hill to start and many were saying the "if it ain't broke then don't fix it" at him.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

And I'd suggest he's playing pretty damn well with the starters as well. There's more to the game than scoring. Lance is a "glue guy" in the starting lineup and "the man" with the bench. At this stage of their careers, Lance is a better ball handler, rebounder, passer, and defender than DG. DG may be a better scorer and shooter. The starting lineup definetly isn't lacking scoring and, IMO, the ball handling and passing are bigger needs for the starting lineup than shooting (assuming DG is even better at this point).

100% agree. The thing that surprised me the most about Lance last year was his ability to play as a glue guy. Definitely not what I was expecting from him.

The comparison with Lin breaks down here because Lin has proved pretty horrible at playing off the ball. Lance has shown that he play both on and off the ball, and do both well. You don't want specialists on the starters, you want well-rounded guys.

Some here are a bit too critical about Danny in their enthusiasm for Lance, but there's no denying that Lance is a better all-around player than Danny. As such, some of us have been calling Lance the better fit with the starters since last year... so it's really strange to see the argument turned on its head.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

As such, some of us have been calling Lance the better fit with the starters since last year... so it's really strange to see the argument turned on its head.

Exactly. I was making the argument Lance was a better fit when DG was almost certainly still the better player. It's amazing for me now to see people saying Lance is the better player, but DGs the better fit. I just don't see it at all. DG, IMO, is not a good fit at all for the starting unit. I'd have concerns about shot distribution, ball handling (only for playoffs when intensity increases), and defensive matchups. And that's taking for granted that he's 100% healthy and still effective - which aren't proven at this point.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

So, I'll ask again - if nothing is really changing, then what are you trying to accomplish? I have to assume that you want him to get more time (most of his time) with the bench and less with the starters. Is that correct? To me that's a role change. If that's correct, what kind of numbers are you expecting Lance to elevate to?

I'm trying to stagger the minutes of my shot creators. I'm trying to preserve a constant offensive flow. I'm trying to make our offense more efficient by keeping 1 shot creator at the court at all times without running either one of them into the ground. That's what I'm trying to do. That's what all teams that have the luxury to have players like OKC Harden and Manu Ginobili are trying to do.

Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

The starting lineup from 11-12 does not exist. PG, Hibbert, and DG are significantly different players than they were then and the dynamics, shot distibution, etc would all need to be completly different. Unless you are suggesting DG take 150-200 more shots more than PG, West, Roy again?

What you are suggesting is an experiment - not switching between two known entities.

Seriously, stop making **** up. None of that is true. You could say George has changed, but reality is he is just a better version of what he was. Hibbert isn't a different player, he is just a better version of what he was. Those 4 starters are not different players, they are just this years version of the same player. Some of them might be better, but that just means there is less of a reliance on Granger. The style they play hasn't changed all that much, just a different shot distribution, and the style matches Granger's game very well as it should considering he was the main cog in its first iteration. Sure things have changed, but we aren't talking about significant changes. We are talking about adjustments that should be simple for a player with the skillset of Granger to adjust to.